I have some images that print very well a number of different ways. They are somewhat abstract, in contrasty lighting, and can be printed to emphasize different areas as I wish. I have sold fine art prints, with different variations at different times. The question is simple. With a neg of a scene that can be interpreted a number of different ways, do you pick one interpretation as your exhibition print & pretty much stick with it or print it differently at different times? This is not a case of not being able to duplicate what I feel is a good, interpretive print. Duplicating any of the various interpretations is relatively simple. But after looking in the darkrom, and having an ephemeral & unrepeatable scene on film, I keep finding different interpretations on paper to express what I see as time moves on. So, how to print?

-- Dan Smith (shooter@brigham.net), November 15, 1997

Answers

printing

Printing to me is a most tedious unpleasant chore. For me, the purpose is to get that perfect print from the negative. I take notes as to the areas to dodge and burn like everyone else and I refer to them again and again. If Ilford ever change the emulsion of Multigrade Fiber I will be really screwed! I wish I can scan that perfect print and have a desktop PC spit out perfect copies and copies every time. Unfortunately (or fortunately) imaging cannot replace silver yet.

-- ray tai (razerx@netvigator.com), November 16, 1997.

Recently I got beat up pretty good in a newsgroup for stating I always attempt to visualize the print before exposing the film. With proper exposure and development I am able, with only one or two test prints, without manipulation (dodging or burning in) produce a print that matches what I visualized. I was told in no uncertain terms that no recognized photographer is able to make a quality print without extensive manipulation in the print making process. And it was ridiculous to make such a statement indicating it is possible to tailor a negative with exposure and development that would make a quality straight print.

I think a person could probably spend a lifetime with a negative using different grades and types of photographic paper and changing the exposure and development. I believe Adams is responsible for so many photographers spending so much time in the darkroom with their negative. However I think Adams intended to tell us once he achieved the print he visualized he stopped. His famous images were not changed for many many years.

-- Dell Elzey (potog@mindspring.com), November 16, 1997.

I remember that thread vividly and the argument was that not everyone wants to portray the scene exactly as it occurred and that darkroom manipulation was just a part of the whole visualization process which includes altering film development. Personally I shoot quickly in 35 mm (mainly urban) and only make a general visualization of the final print and most of my energy goes into the composition. I make alot of the final decisions during the printing stage and then anything goes as far as I'm concerned. If I feel that heavily burned borders or high contrast is needed I do it. I always do whatever the hell I want and if someone doesn't like my images then they don't have to look at them.

-- Andy Laycock (pbrlab@unixg.ubc.ca), November 16, 1997.

Mr. Elzey made some interesting statements about visualizing prints before exposing the film. I don't really care if a print is manipulated or not, it's the final product that's important.

His last sentence regarding Ansel Adams: "His famous images were not changed for many many years." Maybe it's true that "once he acheived the print he visualized he stopped", but some of his images did change considerably over the years. Look at the recent Biography by Mary Street Alinder. It has a photo of Ansel and two prints of "Moonrise, Hernandez, NM" and they are strikingly different. The sky is light in one print, and black in the other (the latter one, I think). Visualization _does_ change over the years.

-- anonymously answered, November 17, 1997

Somehow, i believe in pre-visualising, which includes composition, where to lighten and where to darken, before the film is exposed.

One thing i would like to add is that, to me, all the manipulation in the darkroom is part of the process of obtaining my previsualised print. I am still expressing what I have visualised, isn't it???

But then i would like to add that photography is an art and whatever is your prefered way of producing your print is ok as long as you produce yourself what you wanted to express.

-- Jerry Quek (jerryq@mbox2.singnet.com.sg), November 21, 1997.

I've always preferred the word "interpretation" to "visualisation", because it emphasises that more than one interpretation is possible. We interpret the scene, and will have some ideas about how we want the print to look before we pick up the camera. Some of these ideas will be mutually incompatible (eg "lower or raise the tone of that hill"). In my book, that is OK. Decisions can be deferred to the darkroom. And once there, I may find that some interpretations don't work. Sometimes, one interpretation screams out as the "best", other times it is not so obvious.

-- Alan Gibson (gibson.al@mail.dec.com), November 17, 1997.

re: print as the performance

Interesting question! This might sound hokey to some but I feel that when I photograph, there always seems to be two levels operating: the conscious and the unconscious. The conscious level is the one that makes the decisions about film, lens, filters, etc. These are decisions that are made because of whatever reason I decided to photograph the scene or subject in the first place. However, I often find that as time goes by, when I review my negatives or prints, I don't always feel the same things I felt when I made the negative. Perhaps it has something to do with my growth as a photographer, perhaps it has to do with the weather, a fight with my wife, a bad cheeseburger. Who knows? I do feel that it is necessary for growth to continue to delve into my photos as well as others. My point is this; we are human beings. We grow and change. Our vision and interpretations of things grows and changes as well. You should be ecstatic that you have a negative that has the potential to be interpreted in various ways. I believe that as long as you print with compassion and honesty there is no reason to worry about delving deeper into the various significances of your negatives.

-- Jef Torp (JefTorp@aol.com), November 17, 1997.

interpreting the score

I'm in agreement with Dan...if it works to print something in several different ways, and today you want to print it in version c, then so be it. If previsualization works for you and you know exactly how you want an image to look before you expose the film, great, but if the process is more fluid for you then take the visualization part into the darkroom, try different prints, different contrasts, different burn/dodge, etc.

In my experience the "experiment in the darkroom" method is more attractive for some subjects than others...I find my abstract compositions in particular are more amenable to several darkroom "interpretations" than, say, my landscape images. The latter I might alter some from print to print, but once I've got a method that works then I usually follow that pretty closely for future prints.

Perhaps this relates to how I "see" these different compositions in the first place as well. By this I mean, when I make a photograph of a landscape, I usually prefer the "traditional" max depth of field so the entire image is focused. After substantial experimentation, however, I've found that for more detailed (often somewhat abstract) compositions - lichen on tree branches, for instance - I will want my main subject in focus but not necessarily the background or foreground. Depending on the image, they might be too distracting from the main subject (e.g. a tangle of branches behind that with the lichen). Sometimes I can't figure out which I like best until I see the contact sheets or work prints. (Yes I know about depth of field preview...in 35 mm the image gets pretty dark at f/22!) And then, I may also find several methods of printing the image that I like and that work. I don't see why, if we can "manipulate" the image at its inception (depth of field, lens selection, perspective from above or below, visualizing a very dark sky, etc.) why we can't continue to make it ours from day to day and year to year in the darkroom as well. Some "professionals" who sell in editions of x prints (and the collectors who buy them) might argue with this, saying they must create essentially similar prints, but I think they're still also free to do what they want if they choose to...they own the neg!

-- Cindy Stokes (cstokes@creative.net), November 18, 1997.

One picture can become a universe of other pictures. I make the picture I want to make using whatever I have to use doing whatever I have to do; and I keep the picture that I've made if it furfills me.

-- Albert H. (ai312@freenet.hamilton.on.ca), November 19, 1997.

re: printing as interpreting the score

The concept of "previsualization" seems to scare many photographers, mostly 35mm users. It implies that we must intellectualize the photo before we make the exposure, a process that kills creative spontinaety. But, we all "previsualize" our shots to some extent even though we are not aware of it! Why did we take the picture to start with?

Large format photography demands pre-visualization. The very process of setting up a view camera and using the zone system to determine exposure and development forces it on us. Pre-visualization is NOT composition! It is deciding where to place the shadow detail and how bright to develop the highlight areas, using zone system contraction/expansion methods, so that they will appear in the print as the values we wanted when we made the exposure. This is possible only with sheet fim that can be developed individually for the required dev time.

Hand held cameras and roll film make 'technical prevsualization' virtually impossible and to attempt it would intrude severely into the creative process.

When I shoot 35mm, I operate at the 'gut' level, waiting for the 'decisive moment' if you please. I rely on my film and the 'magic' of PMK developer to get me a negative that I can manipulate into a fine print in the darkroom. With 4X5, I use extensive 'previsualtion' and zone system methods to get a negative that will require much less printing manipulation. A negative that has been exposed and developed to a +2 contrast printed on normal contrast paper looks much different than a normal negative printed on grade 4 paper.

As to changing our mind and later making prints that are completely different from the first one: OF COURSE IT'S OK! That photo is our intellectual property and we can do with it as we please. Because this 'interpreting the score' is a musical allegory, let me ask: If Alfred Brendel recorded the Beethoven sonatas once, why has he decided to do it THREE MORE TIMES? It's the same score (negative) isn't it? Why make a different interpretation (print?) Well, maybe he's had more time to figure things out. Thank God I'm a photographer and not a pianist or my fingers would be bleeding so much I couldn't type this!

-- Michael D Fraser (mdfraser@earthlink.net), November 29, 1997.